AIBU to wonder why any woman would identify herself as [2]

[garlicnutter]

... not a feminist?

Since I killed the old one.

Gender-equalism is what feminism would be called if we were going for accuracy over easy-to-say-ness (and over linking to history). The sort of feminism I advocate, anyway.

Equalism is basically a more modern term for egalitarianism - so yes, it does exist.

See my post on the first thread from Mon 04-Jul-11 11:59:48 - I'm not going to retype.

I see equalism as more of a philosophy - I am not a feminist because the feminist philosophy is too narrow for me. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't take part in some of the feminist political activism, if it was addressing a specific issue that I had an interest in, in much the same way that I may join in with disability, race or gay rights political activism for a specific purpose.

There is a big difference between philosophical ideals and the political instigation of specific issues. As an equalist I will gravitate towards writers, events etc that fit with my personal belief system.

Many feminists use the argument you quote about equalism being fictional or straw man. They refuse to accept that it is not an either / or situation, it's just that for some people, feminism does not adequately address their personal beliefs and standpoint for whatever reason.

Trillian It is great that you choose to align your particular brand of feminism with equal rights for all, however, in my general experience and has as been demonstrated on this thread, that is not the dominant feminist position - again, see my 11:59 post where I addressed this further from my perspective.

Well it's a pointless discussion if people who are self-proclaimed Not Feminists are just going to keep saying to self-proclaimed feminists that despite what we say (that feminism is about equality and does not mean we don't care about other groups) that we are wrong. Does disliking feminism somehow make you better informed about it?

Is it possible that because you don't like the idea of prioritising the cause of women, you savour the views of the feminists you don't agree with because it gives you grounds to nod and say you always knew we were a bad lot?

Interested in the definitions people are using. Men's rights are usually about reinforcing the status quo, not about changing the balance, eg rights for SAHD which would mean men lost relative power and status. And what is meant by 'RadFem' - this used to be radical feminism - emphasis on patriarchy; as distinct from socialist feminism - ways the family system interacts with the economic system; both distinct from liberal feminism - equal rights in existing system. But now radfem seems used as 'feminist who is fairly militant about taking it seriously. That could apply to any of above 3 types.

Also, whilst I support the idea of people being equal regardless of sex, orientation, race, etc etc etc - that's why I am a feminist after all - I don't see the point of "equalism" if its only use is to be a sort of placebo. If it's only ever used in ooposition to "feminism" then it's not very progressive is it? Why not just say "I'm an equalist therefore I support feminism AND xyz"?

Elephants - women are meant to take our natural role, at the back of the queue

"in my general experience and has as been demonstrated on this thread, that is not the dominant feminist position."

I absolutely agree. Interestingly, if it does become the dominant position, it will mean the end of the feminist movement. The whole thing ends up being based on a oppressor/oppressed model. There is to much state money tied up in various active arms of the movement to pull away from that model.

The push toward egalitarian thought is steadily gaining ground, as men pretty much begin dropping out of the rat race. Crumbling infrastructure, the movement of production overseas, fewer rates of college graduation among men, and less tax revenue as a result of all this has forced a lot of people to realize that a more "humanist" approach to equal rights might even be the only way to keep society together.

Unfortunately, the austerity measures being taken up are just a symptom of the bigger problem of globalization, which in my mind just means that everyone ends up being equally poor and all businesses have to be state run.

That certainly doesn't lend to equal rights for anyone...men or women, as the states are beginning to move to have control over all production, or at least regulate society to a point that the freedom to produce hinges upon how many people of one sex or another are filling jobs.

"Well it's a pointless discussion if people who are self-proclaimed Not Feminists are just going to keep saying to self-proclaimed feminists that despite what we say (that feminism is about equality and does not mean we don't care about other groups) that we are wrong."

All we are saying is that many of us have been told by self-proclaimed feminists that they don't care about other groups*.

"I don't see the point of "equalism" if its only use is to be a sort of placebo."

In what way is it a placebo?

"Why not just say "I'm an equalist therefore I support feminism AND xyz"?"

People have been saying that. But the original question is "why don't women identify as feminists", so people have been answering that. Rather than whether or not they support feminism. And so far no one (as far as I've seen) has said they do not support feminism.

*Disclaimer. This obviously doesn't apply to all feminists.

Well I expectt I'm one of these radfems who patronises and is sarcastic and nasty to people at times.

I admit it. I do. But only if the poster in question either has a track record of deliberately winding up on the feminist section, or if they're obviously doing so. There was an example referred to on the 1000 post thread which was me - I deliberately patronise a particular poster and she knows exactly why, because I have told her why and have said that I would continue to do it as long as continues her method of debate: she continually pretends that people have said things they haven't said and then argues vociferously against these things. She does it even when it's challenged and pointed out to her that she's doing it, and she doesn't acknowledge that she's done it and carries on doing it. I have offered not to do it, if she stops doing what she does. She hasn't even acknowledged that she does it. But according to the starting point of that thread, I'm a bitch for doing what I do, and her behaviour is OK.

I read some of that long thread and what struck me is that people made a lot of assertions about what rad fems say which are simply not true. And then they complained that we will say they twist things and quote things out of context, which is exactly what they did on that thread.

I think some useful stuff came out of it; it is useful to be reminded that people aren't always trolling or deliberately winding people up when they express views that are mysogynistic in the feminist section; I don't know if people are aware of just how many MRA's and wind up merchants come regularly to that section to wind us all up so that sometimes may account for people being less than patient and if anyone genuine has been on the end of that I apologise. I don't think that it has been pointed out that when people say some things are anti-feminist or mysogynist they don't mean the poster is necessarily anti-feminist or mysogynist and I think we need to be careful about making that distinction - lots of us who consider ourselves feminists do and say anti-feminist stuff all the time I'm sure - but in the main I really don't think that that thread had a good intention, I read most of it open-mouthed at the nonsense that was being asserted about what most of us think.

"I read some of that long thread and what struck me is that people made a lot of assertions about what rad fems say which are simply not true."

Most of what people said on that thread was what people had said. So they are true, even if they do not apply to all feminists (rad fem or not)

What's an MRA?

No Empusa, they weren't.

They were slightly twisted to be something people hadn't actually said, I remember some of the threads.

For example, someone referred to a post of mine, where I remarked that what worked for me, was living with my children and having a lover occasionally.

This got translated into believing that women should only ever have men as lovers with the implication that they shouldn't be allowed to parent their children.

That's not what I said and not what I believe. But that's what was presented as my words.

And I noticed a couple of others. I'm not going to trawl back through the thread because it's too boring for everyone and obviously I'm sure that some posts are correctly quoted, but I noticed a few other mis-quotes and twisings and a few assertions about what rad fems believe, that are simply not true. I considered going through and doing an analysis but decided on balance that I should get a life instead.

MRA=Men's Rights Activist.

And also, I'm sure some posts were correctly quoted and contexualised, but so what? Just because one or two people might believe that, why does that become the view that everyone wants to present as the orthodoxy?

"Well it's a pointless discussion if people who are self-proclaimed Not Feminists are just going to keep saying to self-proclaimed feminists that despite what we say (that feminism is about equality and does not mean we don't care about other groups) that we are wrong"

Surely feminism is about equality for women and whilst some of you, not all imo, might be bothered about other groups, feminism is about always prioritising women's rights over everybody else to gain equality for women, not any other group unless it happens by happy accident. If that isn't the case, then surely you are equalists too rather than feminists?

Equalists are surely about trying to achieve equality without prioritising one group over another. I would prefer to move things forward by doing no harm to other groups in the process which is not how some feminists work. I reference that again with the feminist who said that boy's educational standards didn't matter so long as girls' standards were improved because boys have had it their own way for too long. (sorry to keep harking back to this but I found it quite shocking at the time and it sticks with me).

Is there an equalist group? How about the Equality and Human Rights Commission? An umbrella group for all sorts of rights. Do you need a group to have an opinion on something?

I think it's uncharitable to call people liars HRH.

I just think that people read other people's posts through a certain prism where they assume that someone is saying something they're not.

So when Sunshine talked about equalism meaning something slightly different on the feminist section to what other people might think it means in their heads (I'm not quite clear what I think it is tbh) that's why people misunderstand each other - they're not quite talking about the same thing and people are assuming an agenda that the other person might not have.

HRH I think it was the one about family heirarchy?

We were throwing ideas around about how the world and households could be organised differently to what it is now. From what I remember it was a bit of a shooting the breeze thread, it was people throwing a whole load of stuff out there and saying "it could be like this..." "you could have this..."

It wasn't "this is how the world should be organised".

I think sometimes on the feminist boards, people shoot the breeze and muse over parallel universes of how things could be, how things could work etc., an then people think that 's how we'd all like to organise the universe. It's not like that, sometimes it's just people coming out with ideas which if they thought about them another day, they might not like the sound of.

Of course we MUST be liars. There is no room an outright admission of the plainly discriminatory practices or beliefs that take place. It would invalidate the entire movement if that happened.

Not to mention the fact that they don't push for what should be a meritocracy...no....instead the idea of affirmative action is pushed.
If we had pushed as a society for a meritocracy instead of affirmative action then the argument would have been over a long time ago. It is perfectly logical that only the best suited for a job should have it.
What other reason to keep shoving the AA idea down everyone's throats then to just make it easier for one group to receive special benefits they didn't earn.

Feminism is about examining the structural imbalance which mean women are disadvantaged TinaLeena

Disadvantaged in what way?